Astronauts As Alien Life Hunters? 172
astroengine writes "Ever since the last NASA space shuttle mission touched down in Florida on July 21, there has been a spirited debate in articles and blogs across the Internet over the future of humans in space. Everyone seems to be asking: What's the point of spending shedloads of cash getting mankind into space when robots can do it at a fraction of the cost? Well, pending any great (and unexpected) advance in robotics, our adaptability in space may be our biggest asset. Ultimately, the hunt for extraterrestrial life may need an astronaut to physically push deeper into space."
Also, who wants to let the robots have all the fun?
True, but that's still going to be a tough sell (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, humans would certainly be a lot better at searching for and finding life in person than any remote robot. But without at least some hint that such life even EXISTS in our solar system outside of earth, that's a pretty bizarre justification for a very expensive and resource-intensive manned space program. And even if it were a reason, if wouldn't justify the last 40 years of the manned space program. If life is out there in this solar system, it's sure as hell not sitting in low earth orbit. You're going to have to go to other planets and moons if you want to find life. And that's going to require a huge investment. Good luck getting that kind of scratch out of a bunch of first-world governments *already* spending way beyond their means.
This guy is actually proposing building research stations on the moon and Mars. And that's going to be an even bigger investment than just getting there. Is that doable? With enough motivation and money, sure. But that's the kind of motivation that's going to require sacrifice. Would you be willing to see your taxes double to pay for it? Would you be willing to give up one of the big government expenses/entitlements (Social Security, the military, Medicare) and funnel that money to NASA? If your answer is "no" to both of those questions, you can probably forget about your Mars bases. Exploration and colonization that far out isn't going to come cheap. That's going to be a pretty tough sell just to answer the philosophical question "Are we alone?" (especially when the answer may well turn out to be "Yes," at least in this solar system).
And for anyone who might suggest going *beyond* our solar system, well that's even more crazy/expensive. With the kind of propulsion we have now, even in the best case scenario it would take tens of thousands of years to reach even the closest other solar system. So unless you have a warp engine on the drawing board, you can pretty much forget that.
Humans are the most adaptable *on earth now* (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's see them adapt to vacuum. To cosmic rays. To a year of hibernation.
A human mission requires orders of magnitude more cost and complexity than a robotic mission. For the same lift requirements, you could set up a robotic science center good for years if not decades of experiments.
And robots are getting better every year. Computers are getting better every year. It's really no contest at this point.
lets stay where we are (Score:2, Insightful)
it worked for the dinosaurs
oh...
Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell (Score:4, Insightful)
Put me down as someone who would give up 90% of our military budget for just about any decent science investment (or even indecent ones, like a Mars colony)
Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell (Score:4, Insightful)
Government is not the answer. NASA has neither the will nor the ability to build stations on the moon or even to reach Mars. Now if China were to land a man on the moon...
Put your money where your mouth is and donate to or invest in a private organization that shares your goals. They are not only more likely to succeed, but more likely to spend that money wisely and in a way that reflects your interests. Bonus: you might see profits someday.
Re:Humans are the most adaptable *on earth now* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell (Score:4, Insightful)
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....
But I'm not giving you a dime until you come up with some sort of not-insane business plan. Too bad you can't. There IS NO economic justification for space exploration as of yet. The technology is nowhere near advanced enough. Now, go find some Unobtanium and maybe that will change things. But absent that, it will be governments doing it for government reasons - only a small bit of that will be the advancement of mankind.
We need a credible enemy. Either the Chinese or aliens, take your pick. I personally prefer the latter since we can control them with decades old hardware.
Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:True, but that's still going to be a tough sell (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you be willing to see your taxes double to pay for it? Would you be willing to give up one of the big government expenses/entitlements (Social Security, the military, Medicare) and funnel that money to NASA? If your answer is "no" to both of those questions, you can probably forget about your Mars bases. Exploration and colonization that far out isn't going to come cheap.
No it won't be cheap, but it's a different scale of expense than what your suggesting. We're talking about a cost of probably something around $100 billion. While that's many times the current NASA budget, it's still only a small fraction of the total Federal budget. It would be less than $1000 per tax payer per year. Not to downplay the value of $1000, but i'd certainly be willing to give that if it meant "boldly going" to places like Mars, Europa, etc.